Search

This paper studies the notion of coherence in interval‐based dose‐finding methods. An incoherent decision is either (a) a recommendation to escalate the dose following an observed dose‐limiting toxicity or (b) a recommendation to deescalate the dose following a non–dose‐limiting toxicity. In a simulated example, we illustrate that the Bayesian optimal interval method and the Keyboard method are not coherent. We generated dose‐limiting toxicity outcomes under an assumed set of true probabilities for a trial of n=36 patients in cohorts of size 1, and we counted the number of incoherent dosing decisions that were made throughout this simulated trial. Each of the methods studied resulted in 13/36 (36%) incoherent decisions in the simulated trial. Additionally, for two different target dose‐limiting toxicity rates, 20% and 30%, and a sample size of n=30 patients, we randomly generated 100 dose‐toxicity curves and tabulated the number of incoherent decisions made by each method in 1000 simulated trials under each curve. For each method studied, the probability of incurring at least one incoherent decision during the conduct of a single trial is greater than 75%. Coherency is an important principle in the conduct of dose‐finding trials. Interval‐based methods violate this principle for cohorts of size 1 and require additional modifications to overcome this shortcoming. Researchers need to take a closer look at the dose assignment behavior of interval‐based methods when using them to plan dose‐finding studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dose-finding studies that aim to evaluate the safety of single agents are becoming less common, and advances in clinical research have complicated the paradigm of dose finding in oncology. A class of more complex problems, such as targeted agents, combination therapies and stratification of patients by clinical or genetic characteristics, has created the need to adapt early-phase trial design to the specific type of drug being investigated and the corresponding endpoints. In this article, we describe the implementation of an adaptive design based on a continual reassessment method for heterogeneous groups, modified to coincide with the objectives of a Phase I/II trial of stereotactic body radiation therapy in patients with painful osseous metastatic disease. Operating characteristics of the Institutional Review Board approved design are demonstrated under various possible true scenarios via simulation studies. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In studies of combinations of agents in phase I oncology trials, the dose-toxicity relationship may not be monotone for all combinations, in which case the toxicity probabilities follow a partial order. The continual reassessment method for partial orders (PO-CRM) is a design for phase I trials of combinations that leans upon identifying possible complete orders associated with the partial order. This article addresses some practical design considerations not previously undertaken when describing the PO-CRM. We describe an approach in choosing a proper subset of possible orderings, formulated according to the known toxicity relationships within a matrix of combination therapies. Other design issues, such as working model selection and stopping rules, are also discussed. We demonstrate the practical ability of PO-CRM as a phase I design for combinations through its use in a recent trial designed at the University of Virginia Cancer Center. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]